Patterson v Brett Martin Ltd [2012] NIIT 01597_11IT (26 January 0 2012)

Patterson v Brett Martin Ltd [2012] NIIT 01597_11IT (26 January 0 2012)

The claimant did not suffer any detriment by any act or deliberate failure to act by the respondent on the ground that he made a protected disclosure. The disciplinary action was not causally linked to any protected disclosure, and the evidence did not establish victimisation contrary to Article 70B of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

Citation
[2012] NIIT 01597_11IT
Parties
Claimant: Albert Patterson; Respondent: Brett Martin Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Victimisation, Detriment, Disciplinary Procedures
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Victimisation Detriment Disciplinary Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Patterson

Claimant

Brett Martin Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant make a protected disclosure?
  2. 2 Did the respondent subject the claimant to a detriment by victimising him contrary to Article 70B of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not suffer any detriment by any act or deliberate failure to act by the respondent on the ground that he made a protected disclosure. The disciplinary action was not causally linked to any protected disclosure, and the evidence did not establish victimisation contrary to Article 70B of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed